The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not refund £22.95 the complainant paid for parking. This is because the complainant could have used his appeal rights in relation to the Penalty Charge Notice and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council will not refund £22.95 he paid for parking via Ringo even though Ringo accepted payment for the wrong bay. He wants a £22.95 refund.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the Council’s response to Mr X’s challenge to the parking fine. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
Mr X parked in a bay and paid £22.95 for parking using Ringo.
The Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) because Mr X parked in a bay reserved for permit holders. Mr X challenged the fine and said he paid via Ringo as stated on the sign. The Council did not cancel the fine because Mr X parked in a bay for permit holders where Ringo did not apply. I have seen a photograph of the sign for the bay where Mr X parked and it only refers to permit holders and gives no information about paying by Ringo.
Mr X then had the option of paying the PCN or using the statutory process and appealing to the tribunal. Mr did not appeal but paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £65.
Mr X sought a refund of the £22.95 parking charge. The Council declined to issue a refund. It said Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal if he thought the PCN was wrong. It also said he followed the signs for another bay rather than the sign next to where he parked.
Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response. He says the sign was not clear and payment should not have been accepted for the wrong bay.
I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have followed the statutory process, and appealed to the tribunal, if he thought he had not committed a parking offence or thought the sign was unclear. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about PCNs. If the tribunal upheld the appeal Mr X would not have had to pay the PCN.
I will also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. Mr X wants a refund of £22.95 but this is not a level of injustice which is significant enough to warrant an investigation. In addition, Mr X still parked his car and the charge reflects the amount due for the parking. The additional financial impact is from the PCN and, as I have said, that is a matter he could have taken to the tribunal.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman